And, he has been voting the way he has been talking, just to get that out of the way.

I agree that Dodd was good.  Basically, Biden, Dodd, and Hagel were really good.  Lugar was lame, but hardly is an enthusiast for this war.

Went right at both of these guys with the right questions and without letting them wiggle.

Barbara Boxer was strong as well.

Sununu is a toad.

I thought Kerry got in the main talking points:

1. They moved the goal posts from breathing space for national reconciliation to tactical military success pockets in Iraq.

2.  Al Anbar developments do nothing for national reconciliation.

3. The moral component:  is it right to continue to send troops into Iraq to be killed or maimed for an Iraqi government that refuses to do the work necessary for a unified Iraq?

http://www.tpmmuckra...

This is not a success.  It is a disasterous foreign policy mistake.

Some good questioning from Obama.  Apparently, Biden cut him off just when he was going in for the kill.  Presidential politics, make no mistake, were in this hearing.

http://www.salon.com...

Another juicy tidbit:

When John Kerry stopped by Barack Obama's chair during today's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Iraq, the news photographers in the room couldn't resist the moment. They turned away from Gen. David Petraeus and, in an explosion of shutter clicks, captured a conversation between presidential candidates past and present.

What did the two discuss? We don't know. But when it came time for Obama to put questions to Petraeus and ambassador Ryan Crocker, the junior senator from Illinois was ready with a speech instead. The performance of the troops? "Outstanding." Petraeus and Crocker? "Doing the absolutely best that you can given an extraordinarily difficult situation." But as soon as he said those words, Obama complained that the mission on which Petraeus and Crocker have been sent is nearly impossible, and that they've "punted" each time they've been asked about the larger strategy they're implementing.

Go to the link to read the rest.

"In Iraq. . . .there is ethno- sectarian competition for power and resources.",
General David Petreasus--9/11/2007

the

sen obama said all of these events in Al Anbar province you should be very careful how much of that you associate with the "surge".  Jimmy fought pretty hard for that area long before

Hearings of '02, watching those hearings was what got me into politics.  How long are we going to be in Iraq "as long as is necessary and not one day more."  We're looking for some specificity.  Eisenhower 1952:  the korean war had gone on for 2 years "when the enemy struck it appealed to the heroism of its youth: now in this anxious autmn ... it is a simple question  Where do we go from here,  when is the end, "an early and honorable end"

All of this debate:  the surge wasn't a change of strategy.  I don't see reconciliation, maybe conciliation.  This is simply a tactical adjustment.

The one inarguable result has been the disruption of service rotations.  extentded tours... 15 months in with 12 months at home.  Very periliious to the wellbing of the volunteer army system, and the servicemen.

it used to be 2 to 1.  the british had 4 to 1.

What's your view of dwelltime policy?

Petraeus - no answer.

1.  Iraq a mistake in the first place.  We want to get out without destabalizing region.

2.  Agrees with what Obama says.  Events that occurred in al Anbar -- you should be careful with associating that with the surge.  He has some personal experience with that, because his son fought there as a Marine in the worst sections of Ramadi.

3.  Reminds him of the hearings of '02.  It's what got him in elected politics.  How in those hearings that year, when government officials were asked how long forces would be in Iraq, they would answer "as long as it takes to get the job done, and not one more day".  Quotes Eisenhower.  "The first task is to bring the Korean War to an early and honorable end."

Surge is not a strategy, unless it has a massive diplomatic part to it and national reconciliation.  Not there.  He said that everyone can agree that the one thing the surge has caused is a total disruption of the rotational cycle of deployment.  15 months of deployment and only 12 months at home.  This is very perilous to the volunteer army.  Just the plain well being of these people.

The Brits is 4 to 1.

Petraeus:  as commander of Multinational Forces in Iraq, he has to do what needs to be done with the mission.

Petraeus:  he is keenly aware of the stress on the forces.

Webb:  how could they do a 15 month deployment to 12 months home?  This goes against everything Webb is for since he was born.

Feel free to use this thread for the Armed Services Committee hearing.

Webb was very good driving his point home.  He is very disciplined about his message that he wants to convey, largely restricting his remarks to how this affects troop deployments and the troops' well being.

Walnuts coulda been a contenda.

Thus, we either let Bush keep on destroying the world, or else we blame his disasters on Congressional Dems.

Nice work, walnuts.

On what facts did you predicate the hope that you had?

Petraeus... blah, um...blah blah...blah

NIE:  even if violence is diminished iraqi leaders will be hard pressed to sustain any political accomplishment...

Petraeus....um... blah blah

Warner:  we've got to help the president get it right.

"I don't think that this current status of the Iraqi government

In that Jan 10 message, the president, that everyrhign would be based on political reconciliation.

top down reconciliation can no longer be used as a building block for the going forward plan.

Spanking them.

I hope that if you disagree that you will advise him.

Is John Warner the only decent Republican left in America?

Petraeus has not sorted it out in his own mind.  He's like an errant grandchild being called on the carpet by a wise grandparent.

TPMMuckraker:

In the hearings' most stunning moment so far, Sen. John Warner (R-VA) asked Gen. Petraeus if success in the Iraq war will make America safer. His response -- by far the most surprising moment of the hearings -- was a blunt "I don't know." This is the first time that any general officer, let alone the commanding general in Iraq, has ever equivocated on whether success in Iraq will contribute to U.S. security. By contrast, President Bush describes a victory in Iraq as an epochal achievement for America and a potentially decisive blow to terrorism.

Petraeus - we are not arming the tribes.

In Iraq security necessary for political reconciliation.  political reconciliation necessary for security.

It's like dog chasing the tail...  but any breeder will tell you, that's not the one to pick.

Where's the urgency?  What are you doing to force a change?